NTID ponders to remove the name of AGB from the campus

jillio said:
But the organization that carries his name continues to promote discriminatory practices against the signing deaf today. He may be dead, but his philosophies live on.
Click to expand...
Well, it's the organization that's doing wrong... not AGB himself. A building name should not be "criticized" just because of what an organization did.

If you do believe that the building should be renamed simply because of a named organization, then I could do the same thing with NTID. The NTID building is LBJ. I could look up stuff on the actual person named LBJ and then set up an organization. I could start taking his ideals to the extreme even though they're old. I'll do it enough so that it starts pissing off the deaf students there. Then, they will want to rename LBJ to something else as well.

JFK didn't want to go to war. LBJ did. So, I could set up an organization where we do things that other people don't want to do. Don't like my organization? Too bad. I'm simply following LBJ's ideals to the extreme.

Now, does that sound reasonable? No.
 
VamPyroX said:
Well, it's the organization that's doing wrong... not AGB himself. A building name should not be "criticized" just because of what an organization did.

If you do believe that the building should be renamed simply because of a named organization, then I could do the same thing with NTID. The NTID building is LBJ. I could look up stuff on the actual person named LBJ and then set up an organization. I could start taking his ideals to the extreme even though they're old. I'll do it enough so that it starts pissing off the deaf students there. Then, they will want to rename LBJ to something else as well.

JFK didn't want to go to war. LBJ did. So, I could set up an organization where we do things that other people don't want to do. Don't like my organization? Too bad. I'm simply following LBJ's ideals to the extreme.

Now, does that sound reasonable? No.
Click to expand...

The difference being, LBJ did not practice soft eugenics. LBJ did not promote oralism only. LBJ did not discriminate against the signing deaf. AG Bell did, and AGBad does. So to name a building after him on a college campus that has a name such as national Technical Institute for the Deaf is insulting.

Now, if you were to name a building after LBJ on a Quaker campus, as Quakers are known first and foremost for their religious stance on pacifism, that, too would be insulting. The man's philosphy is diametrically opposed to their belief system.

To name a building after the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan might also be acceptable for some. I doubt that it would be tolerated on, for example, the campus of Fisk University, a tradtitionally Black campus.

See the difference?
 
VamPyroX said:
Well, it's the organization that's doing wrong... not AGB himself. A building name should not be "criticized" just because of what an organization did.

If you do believe that the building should be renamed simply because of a named organization, then I could do the same thing with NTID. The NTID building is LBJ. I could look up stuff on the actual person named LBJ and then set up an organization. I could start taking his ideals to the extreme even though they're old. I'll do it enough so that it starts pissing off the deaf students there. Then, they will want to rename LBJ to something else as well.

JFK didn't want to go to war. LBJ did. So, I could set up an organization where we do things that other people don't want to do. Don't like my organization? Too bad. I'm simply following LBJ's ideals to the extreme.

Now, does that sound reasonable? No.
Click to expand...

How soon have we forgotten the Milan conference?
 
NTID Community:

As you may know, there have been a considerable number of concerns expressed by members of the RIT/NTID community about the name of the Alexander G. Bell Hall and commemorative plaque honoring Bell posted in the foyer of the building. It is argued by many that a number of attitudes, opinions, and actions that Alexander G. Bell promoted during his lifetime are not supportive of the diversity of people who are deaf, and therefore do not represent NTID.

Alan Hurwitz
Click to expand...

Apparently when they constructed NTID, they felt that naming a hall after AGB was of importance in deaf education.

Why not track down those people that made the decision to inquire about naming the hall for AGB?
 
Byrdie714 said:
Apparently when they constructed NTID, they felt that naming a hall after AGB was of importance in deaf education.

Why not track down those people that made the decision to inquire about naming the hall for AGB?
Click to expand...

I bet these people are pro-Oralism and anti-ASL. :blah:
 
I came across a Google cache of "Ask President Destler" (RIT President) (apparently the page was updated and some information was not archived but luckily I was able to find it in Google cache so here's what was posted back then before the page was updated...
Ask President Destler
Q: Before PepsiCo aired its deaf commercial called “Bob’s House” for the Super Bowl, an organization named Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (AG Bell) sent a letter to PepsiCo to “complain” about the commercial. The letter can be found at this link:

http://agbell.org/uploads/Pepsi3ltr.pdf

The letter implanted that an oral communication is the only choice for deaf and hard of hearing people to communicate. Historically, Alexander G. Bell does not support American Sign Language. He also thought deaf people should not marry each other and also cannot become teachers.

I highly recommend you to read a plaque at Bell Hall and I want your opinion on the plaque.

I strongly believe that people have rights to choose what types of communications they want to use to communicate.

Already, there is a Facebook group who want a rename of Bell Hall and a removal of the plaque from dorm. The petition has been circulated to ask for the rename and the removal of the plaque.

Would you consider renaming the hall and removing the plaque?

A: The concerns raised by members of the RIT/NTID community about the Alexander Graham Bell Association’s letter to PepsiCo, and the wording of the plaque in Bell Hall are important ones. Therefore, I have asked T. Alan Hurwitz, RIT Vice President and Dean for NTID to lead a group to assess the issues and make a recommendation to me. Dr. Hurwitz has asked Dr. James DeCaro, former NTID dean and Interim Director to work with him as vice chair. Included will be representatives from faculty, staff, student and deaf professional groups. If a name change is recommended, it would have to be approved by the President of RIT and ultimately the Board of Trustees.
For those readers unaware of the controversy, here is some information:
The AG Bell Association promotes the use of oral communication and technology for deaf children and adults. In its letter to PepsiCo, the Association said the company’s millions could have been better spent buying hearing aids for those who cannot afford them rather than portraying the small segment of the deaf population that uses only sign language to communicate.
The plaque in the foyer of Bell Hall reads:
Only six years before his death, Alexander Graham Bell looked back over his amazing life and wrote: “Recognition of my work for and interest in the education of the deaf has always been more pleasing to me than even recognition of my work with the telephone.”
A brilliant and innovative teacher of the deaf, Bell dedicated a great portion of his life to help deaf children develop this potential for listening, speaking and lipreading.
Today, NTID emulates the ideals for which Alexander Graham Bell worked.

While Dr. Hurwitz and the entire NTID community is supportive of all forms of communication, he also tells me, “I feel the Pepsi commercial was a clever way to expose millions of viewers to a brief glimpse of deaf culture. It promoted diversity and it apparently continues to be a source for a healthy discussion.” In letters to PepsiCo and Alexander Graham Bell Association, individual faculty and students have felt free to express their concerns or support regarding this commercial.
More important to our RIT community, I welcome the exploration of this issue by Dr. Hurwitz and Dr. DeCaro regarding the plaque and whether it should be removed or the wording changed.
Those wishing to be part of the discussion should contact Dr. Hurwitz’ office.
Click to expand...

The Letter to Pespi is located in Newsroom section of AGBell's website
Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
 
How about Hellen Keller?

I really think that the AGB simply had a mind of the past. He probably didn't know any better.
 
Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.


People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.
 
Rainshower77 said:
Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.


People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.
Click to expand...


It is not only the issue of sterilizing..AGBell forced many deaf people to be oral and banned them from using sign language. He took away their rights to full access to language and communication because he wanted deaf people to be the mold of hearing people.
 
Rainshower77 said:
Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.


People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.
Click to expand...

While there will always be people, in their mistaken and prejudiced minds, that will support some form of eugenics, it does not make it right. You can hardly compare elective choice with forced sterilization. In one, the individual is given a choice. In the other society forces it on the individual. Two completely different situations.
 
Rainshower77 said:
Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.


People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.
Click to expand...
That's right.

One of the unspoken rules of "Deaf Pride" is that a deaf person must have a deaf parent and a deaf other-half in order to be considered part of Deaf Culture.

Everyone's always playing the blame game trying to get attention when things are sometimes best left alone in history.
 
Rainshower77 said:
Personally, I don't see the point of judging Bell. Afterall he does have a deaf mother and wife.

How many of you support abortion because the child have down syndrome or other mental disease? Making deaf sterilized to prevent more deaf people (when abortion was not common) is no different than abortions done today to prevent down syndromes and other disorder. Most doctors WILL suggest abortions too which is also no difference than Bell suggesting sterilization on deafs . Except today, we have better technology to determine which babies can live or die.


People always had and always will support eliminating people with some kind of disorders as possible.. no matter how they do it.
Click to expand...

People would sterilized those that they consider to be a burdensome. Won't you object if I said that the hearing people ought to be sterilized because they are burdensome to the deaf people? Too many of hearing parents don't know ASL thus too many deaf people get behind in their education. Many managers won't hire deaf people so the deaf people end up on SSI/SSDI. If the manager do hire a deaf person then the manager could keep the deaf person in low salary bracket and might not consider promotion for that deaf person eventhough if the deaf person is good worker. Rainshower, you don't mind this at all?
 
jillio said:
While there will always be people, in their mistaken and prejudiced minds, that will support some form of eugenics, it does not make it right. You can hardly compare elective choice with forced sterilization. In one, the individual is given a choice. In the other society forces it on the individual. Two completely different situations.
Click to expand...



In sterilization case, there is no child to live or die. but it is force on them not to have babies because they themselves exist.

In a abortion case, it's is the parents that force their own child not to live at all. And the child does exist.
 
Buffalo said:
People would sterilized those that they consider to be a burdensome. Won't you object if I said that the hearing people ought to be sterilized because they are burdensome to the deaf people? Too many of hearing parents don't know ASL thus too many deaf people get behind in their education. Many managers won't hire deaf people so the deaf people end up on SSI/SSDI. If the manager do hire a deaf person then the manager could keep the deaf person in low salary bracket and might not consider promotion for that deaf person eventhough if the deaf person is good worker. Rainshower, you don't mind this at all?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with it, but many people have done abortion because it is a burdensome to them because of their disability... if they could screen genes for deafness durning pregnancy, you bet many hearing parents will abort (and I have heard deaf people would do the same thing... and one time I have heard that some have put their child up for adoption because he is hearing... they wanted a deaf child).
 
Rainshower77 said:
In sterilization case, there is no child to live or die. but it is force on them not to have babies because they themselves exist.

In a abortion case, it's is the parents that force their own child not to live at all. And the child does exist.
Click to expand...

Now you are getting into the morality of abortion, and that can be discussed in another thread. Abortion issues have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of soft eugenics ir the promotion of the well born based on something as superficial as deafness. One is an individual issue. The other is an attempt to do away with an entire population through extrodinary means simply because they happen to be deaf.
 
Back
Top